Jan 03 2006
Why The Left Fails
I finally figured out why the left fails so often when they try so hard to get Bush. It’s their glee. They can’t hide it.
When they say the fact the NSA is doing their job is a major issue, they screw it up by being giddy and happy – instead of concerned.
Their lack of really being concerned tips their hands and shows them to be two-faced. And no American is going to believe the sky is falling when the Chicken Little telling you the sky is falling is wearing a pathetic smirk.
If it was so serious, wouldn’t they be a little concerned? Case in point:
You’ll never get a better Christmas gift than the NSA wiretapping scandal. What are you going to do with it? Are you going to let this one slide into the murmurs of committee hearings and “Washington Week,” or are you going to stand up and insist – loudly, repeatedly, unswervingly – that this is a country of laws, that the President has admitted on national television that he broke the law, that he intends to continue breaking the law “so long as [he is] President,” and that in order to preserve the rule of law, criminals must be punished? The public must be shown that this is a vitally important issue.
Any concern about civil rights? Any concern about national security? Did Bush admit to breaking laws or using intelligence to track down terrorists now in our country? What does this fool think we should do with intel on terrorist activities in this country? FISA judges have already complained it ‘taints’ them to learn about terrorists through intel!
No, it is all about a christmas present and the public must be shown it is important. And this is in a post on how not to screw it up again! What a moron.
That’s the left for you. Stuck on stupid.
Stuck on Stupid is correct as the decision in the case below clearly illustrates.
Jabara v. Kelley
June 13, 1979
CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff citizen filed suit against defendants, the National Security Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and their agents. Plaintiff raised several constitutional and statutory challenges to various practices employed by defendants in conducting an investigation of him. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment and defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff was an active member of various Arab organizations. Defendants maintained an ongoing investigation of plaintiff and employed a variety of tactics therein. The court granted in part and denied in part the motions by both parties and held that: 1) plaintiff’s claims could not be rendered moot because of the likelihood of future investigation and unresolved legal issues; 2) plaintiff presented a justiciable First Amendment claim because the unlawful intrusions exceeded a subjective chill of plaintiff’s right of free speech; 3) defendants’ motion to dismiss all Fourth Amendment claims based on physical surveillance, use of informers, inspection of bank records, and the maintenance and dissemination of the obtained information was granted because plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy therein; 4) there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the legitimacy of the investigation and the alleged violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; and 5) a warrant was not required for the incidental interception of plaintiff’s conversations with the targets of wiretaps because the surveillance was for foreign intelligence purposes.
Clear language of Title III reveals that it did not legislate with respect to national security surveillances and that such surveillances therefore are not subject to the warrant requirements contained in 18 U.S.C.S. § 2518. While Title III does not legislate with respect to the necessity of obtaining a warrant for national security wiretaps, it does provide procedures and remedies applicable to any national security wiretap where a warrant is otherwise required by the constitution.
Because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
A warrant is not required for foreign intelligence electronic surveillances authorized by the President where the target of the surveillance is an agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power.
First, it is clear that the plaintiff’s theory of recovery cannot be based on the provisions of Title III. Although Title III requires a warrant for certain types of electronic surveillance, it did not legislate with respect to the President’s power to authorize electronic surveillance with respect to matters of national security. 18 U.S.C. § 2511(3). In United States v. United States Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1972), the Supreme Court held that HN8clear language of [**42] Title III reveals that it did not legislate with respect to national security surveillances and that such surveillances therefore are not subject to the warrant requirements contained in 18 U.S.C. § 2518. Accord, Hallinan v. Mitchell, 418 F. Supp. 1056 (N.D.Cal.1976). However, in Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594 (1975), (En banc ), a plurality of the Court held that Title III was applicable to any situation where a warrant was constitutionally required for electronic surveillance. In other words, the Court recognized that while Title III does not legislate with respect to the necessity of obtaining a warrant for national security wiretaps, it does provide procedures and remedies applicable to any national security wiretap where a warrant is otherwise required by the constitution.
[*576] Thus, even considering Zweibon, it is clear that Title III does not in and of itself require a warrant for national security investigations. As a result, the issue which must be resolved is whether there is a constitutional basis, aside from Title III, which requires a warrant for electronic surveillance such as that conducted in this case. In Keith, the Court held that [**43] a warrant was constitutionally required for domestic national security wiretaps. However, the Court specifically left open the issue of whether a warrant is required for a foreign national security wiretap:
Because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, (430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970), rev’d on other grounds 403 U.S. 698, 91 S. Ct. 2068, 29 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1970)), that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
the President’s authority with respect to the conduct of foreign affairs does not excuse him from seeking judicial approval before instituting a surveillance, at least where the subject of the surveillance is a domestic organization that is not the agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power. Id. 170 U.S.App.D.C. at 62, 516 F.2d at 655.
In light of these decisions, the Court is of the opinion that HN10a warrant is not required [**45] for foreign intelligence electronic surveillances authorized by the President where the target of the surveillance is an agent of or acting in collaboration with a foreign power.
n14. From the In camera affidavits it appears that Title III would not provide a separate ground for requiring a warrant in this case in view of the Supreme Court’s holding in Keith that national security surveillance conducted pursuant to executive order is not within the ambit of Title III.
SBD
One of the chief symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome is unambiguous glee at the occurrence of events the would give most people pause or concern. Bad weather, bad economy, or bad news involving the military anywhere in the world sends its sufferers into a rapturous state of anticipation: the fervent conviction that all that is bad can be tied to Bushitler pushes everything else-including facts- out of the way. A kind of rooting- against- your- own- country mentality becomes obvious to everyone but themselves.
It’s amusing to see this at work in ordinary moonbats, but the fact that it infects large numbers of the exempt media is an outrage. I think your class action suit idea is an interesting one. Macranger also has some interesting stuff over at his site.
Before anyone mentions FISA or the date of this decision, they should remember that we have 3 seperate branches of government and one branch can not take from the other a right given to them by the Constitution.
Because of the President’s constitutional duty to act for the United States in the field of foreign relations, and his inherent power to protect national security in the context of foreign affairs, we reaffirm what we held in United States v. Clay, that the President may constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretaps for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence.
Congress and the Looney Left can pass any laws they want, but none of them will change the President’s powers given to him by the Constitution.
SBD
I’ve been trying to get my idea for a class action against the NYT for some time now. I hope that with the exposure from AJ, that it will finally get some exposure and serious consideration. I sent the idea to Move America Forward, To The Point News, and Judicial Watch a few months back, but never got a response. Hopefully this new exposure will get the ball rolling.
Thank You AJ Strata!!
Here is my original email that I sent which at the time was focused on the Plame Game, but is probably better suited for the more recent treasonous crimes of the NYT.
Class Action Lawsuit Against New York Times To Recover Plame Game Cost
10/23/05
Hello,
Let me start by thanking you and your organization for the tremendiously hard work you have done to support this country and all of its citizens from both the terrorists abroad and the Democratic ones that get elected to office right here.
As you know, the New York Times has become blantent in their support for America’s enemies. I am sure you are as fed up as I am and was wondering if something couldn’t be done to hit the New York Times in the only way that may have some effect, that is, in their pocket book.
If the real truth does see the light of day in the Plame Game, it is the New York Times that should be held accountable and be forced to pay all of the money wasted on this fraudulant investigation. It absolutely amazes me that it has continued to this point. I know that reporters in this country are lazy and some down right stupid, but it took over a week for them to figure out that they could make up the story that Valerie Plame was an undercover agent to get at two Bush administrataton officials. What about the DOJ or George Tenent who have yet to acknowledge that Plame was undercover. Shouldn’t the entire Department of Justice be fired for not reacting immediately to such an act that undermines National Security and puts lives in danger. What about Joe Wilson who gave several interviews after Novak’s story and even spoke with Novak about his wife, but it never occurred to him to mention it and stop any further damage that could occur including the endangerment of his wife and two children.
The following article below demonstrates how the false information was created and should have put an end to this saga, but once again the New York Times just continues to commit treason against the United States.
The time has come to put an end to this once and for all. If you know a lawyer that might be willing to look into the idea of filing a class action lawsuit against the New York Times to recover the taxpayer dollars wasted by these lies and distortion, I will be the first to join the class and contribute in any way I can. The New York Times should be no different than any other entity that has wasted the taxpayers money for spreading lies and must be forced to pay back the government for all costs.
National Review July 22, 2003, Tuesday
July 22, 2003, Tuesday
SECTION: National Review Online; Krugman Truth Squad
LENGTH: 1484 words
HEADLINE: Retraction Times
BYLINE: By Donald Luskin; Donald Luskin is chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics LLC, an independent economics and investment-research firm. He welcomes your comments at don@trendmacro.com .
BODY:
I smell another New York Times retraction coming up. And a big one. Paul Krugman, America’s most dangerous liberal pundit, has made a statement in his Times column today which – if it had been directed against a private individual rather than public officials – would almost certainly trigger a libel suit.
It’s an extraordinarily serious allegation, tantamount to accusing Bush administration officials of treason:
… Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act …
Krugman has been raking President Bush over the coals for his “16 words” in the State of the Union address – so now, the Krugman Truth Squad is going do a little raking with these “18 words.” Let’s start by putting Krugman’s 18 words in context (which is more than Krugman ever does when he quotes President Bush):
And while we’re on the subject of patriotism, let’s talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson’s wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him – it’s unpleasant stuff. But here’s the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson’s wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it’s also definitely unpatriotic.
Okay, let’s look at this statement under the microscope in the Krugman Truth Squad’s forensics lab, and watch a lie being born.
We’ll start with the first sentence: “And while we’re on the subject of patriotism, let’s talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson’s wife.” First, we’re not “on the subject of patriotism.” It’s a peculiar error for a newspaper well known for being heavily copy-edited, but other than the title of the column – “Who’s Unpatriotic Now” – there was no reference to patriotism in the column whatsoever. And similarly, there’s no “affair of Joseph Wilson’s wife” – these two paragraphs are the attempt to invent one.
The second sentence: “Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings.” What a coincidence – it just so happens that Wilson “went public” by publishing an op-ed in none other but the New York Times itself on July 6. Considering that Krugman’s Times column is a defense of copyrighted material that appeared in the Times, journalistic ethics demand that this potential conflict of interest be disclosed. But then …
The third sentence: “Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him – it’s unpleasant stuff.” What’s the “unpleasant stuff”? Krugman never says – so we are left to imagine a vicious smear campaign that does not, in fact, exist. CIA director George Tenet discussed Wilson’s claims (without naming Wilson) in his courageous statement in which he expressed regret that the Niger intelligence had been cited in the State of the Union address. While Tenet argued Wilson’s investigation was both incomplete and that elements of it partially supported the Niger intelligence, he said nothing whatsoever disparaging of Wilson. Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer said in a press briefing the day after Wilson’s Times op-ed that there was “zero, nada, nothing new here.” And in another press briefing the day after Tenet’s statement, Fleischer forcefully argued that Wilson was presenting a one-sided view of his investigation for the media. But there was no “unpleasant stuff” whatsoever.
The most “unpleasant stuff” I can find is a critique by Capsar Weinberger in last Friday’s Wall Street Journal. I’m not sure whether he qualifies as an “administration ally,” but he notes that Wilson was always “an outspoken opponent of the war” and calls him a “retired ambassador with a less than stellar record.” By the standards set by Krugman’s columns – in which, for example, he has compared George Bush to Emperor Caligula and Captain Queeg – that “stuff” isn’t really all that “unpleasant,” is it? Or maybe the problem is the fact that Bush and security advisor Condoleezza Rice affronted Wilson’s pride by being unaware of his investigation, which by his own admission he never wrote up as a report, prior to the inclusion of the “16 words” in the State of the Union.
The fourth sentence: “But here’s the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.” Isn’t it remarkable that Krugman would quote conservative icon Robert Novak as an authority on anything more important than the time of day? Well, partisan punditry makes strange bedfellows. Here’s what Novak said in a July 14 Chicago Sun-Times column:
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. “I will not answer any question about my wife,” Wilson told me.
And here’s what Time reported in a July 17 story:
And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband’s being dispatched [sic] Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices.
In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president’s father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. “That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case,” Wilson told TIME. “I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job.”
This is a “smear job”? To say that Wilson’s wife “suggested” or “was involved” in Wilson’s trip? For one thing, who’s to say it’s not true – according to Novak, the CIA agrees Plame was “involved” – and if it is true, is it still a smear? And what if it’s false – what exactly is the “unpleasant stuff” here? Is it the implication that Wilson’s wife finagled an all-expenses-paid trip for her hubby to Niger? Now maybe if he were investigating Iraqi uranium purchases from Maui I could see the point, but it seems to me that the most “unpleasant” element is that it suggests that Plame must not like her husband very much.
Now on to the fifth sentence: “Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson’s wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative.” Huh?! When did “their characterization” of Plame go from being an “operative” (per Novak) or an “official” (per Time) to being a “covert operative”? That’s Krugman’s characterization. That’s not reporting. That’s not commentary. It’s just plain old making stuff up.
Apparently the Times has learned nothing about fact-checking from the Jayson Blair scandal – or perhaps Krugman longs for the same kind of Pablo Picasso-like “retirement” from the Times that former executive editor Howell Raines told Charlie Rose he intends to enjoy – now that he’s been chucked out onto the hard pavement of 43rd Street.
Okay, we’re almost there – one sentence to go: “That happens to be a criminal act; it’s also definitely unpatriotic.” Well, there we have it. It’s one thing for Krugman to use every dirty trick in the book to disagree with the policies of the Bush administration (though even there, only an utterly amoral partisan would agree that his end justifies his means). But this is something far worse. He has accused the Bush administration of endangering the life of a “covert operative” by exposing her. He has, in essence, accused the Bush administration of a conspiracy to commit treason.
If that’s not what he really means then it is most urgent that a retraction from the New York Times be immediately forthcoming.
Thank you for your time and all that you do for this country., I can be reached on my cell at xxx-xxx-xxx at any time.
Sincerely,
SBD
AMEN!!! SBD